On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I thought you were printing actual pointer addresses. If you're just >> printing offsets relative to wherever the segment happens to be >> mapped, I don't care about that. > > Well, that just means that it's not an *obvious* security risk. > > I still like the idea of providing something comparable to > MemoryContextStats, rather than creating a SQL interface. The problem > with a SQL interface is you can't interrogate it unless (1) you are not > already inside a query and (2) the client is interactive and under your > control. Something you can call easily from gdb is likely to be much > more useful in practice.
Since the shared memory segment isn't changing at runtime, I don't see this as being a big problem. It could possibly be an issue for dynamic shared memory segments, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
